Literature DB >> 24501682

Whole exome sequencing is an efficient, sensitive and specific method of mutation detection in osteogenesis imperfecta and Marfan syndrome.

Aideen M McInerney-Leo1, Mhairi S Marshall1, Brooke Gardiner1, Paul J Coucke2, Lut Van Laer3, Bart L Loeys4, Kim M Summers5, Sofie Symoens2, Jennifer A West6, Malcolm J West6, B Paul Wordsworth7, Andreas Zankl8, Paul J Leo1, Matthew A Brown1, Emma L Duncan9.   

Abstract

Osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) and Marfan syndrome (MFS) are common Mendelian disorders. Both conditions are usually diagnosed clinically, as genetic testing is expensive due to the size and number of potentially causative genes and mutations. However, genetic testing may benefit patients, at-risk family members and individuals with borderline phenotypes, as well as improving genetic counseling and allowing critical differential diagnoses. We assessed whether whole exome sequencing (WES) is a sensitive method for mutation detection in OI and MFS. WES was performed on genomic DNA from 13 participants with OI and 10 participants with MFS who had known mutations, with exome capture followed by massive parallel sequencing of multiplexed samples. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and small indels were called using Genome Analysis Toolkit (GATK) and annotated with ANNOVAR. CREST, exomeCopy and exomeDepth were used for large deletion detection. Results were compared with the previous data. Specificity was calculated by screening WES data from a control population of 487 individuals for mutations in COL1A1, COL1A2 and FBN1. The target capture of five exome capture platforms was compared. All 13 mutations in the OI cohort and 9/10 in the MFS cohort were detected (sensitivity=95.6%) including non-synonymous SNPs, small indels (<10 bp), and a large UTR5/exon 1 deletion. One mutation was not detected by GATK due to strand bias. Specificity was 99.5%. Capture platforms and analysis programs differed considerably in their ability to detect mutations. Consumable costs for WES were low. WES is an efficient, sensitive, specific and cost-effective method for mutation detection in patients with OI and MFS. Careful selection of platform and analysis programs is necessary to maximize success.

Entities:  

Year:  2013        PMID: 24501682      PMCID: PMC3909233          DOI: 10.1038/bonekey.2013.190

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bonekey Rep        ISSN: 2047-6396


  53 in total

Review 1.  A survey of sequence alignment algorithms for next-generation sequencing.

Authors:  Heng Li; Nils Homer
Journal:  Brief Bioinform       Date:  2010-05-11       Impact factor: 11.622

2.  A syndrome of altered cardiovascular, craniofacial, neurocognitive and skeletal development caused by mutations in TGFBR1 or TGFBR2.

Authors:  Bart L Loeys; Junji Chen; Enid R Neptune; Daniel P Judge; Megan Podowski; Tammy Holm; Jennifer Meyers; Carmen C Leitch; Nicholas Katsanis; Neda Sharifi; F Lauren Xu; Loretha A Myers; Philip J Spevak; Duke E Cameron; Julie De Backer; Jan Hellemans; Yan Chen; Elaine C Davis; Catherine L Webb; Wolfram Kress; Paul Coucke; Daniel B Rifkin; Anne M De Paepe; Harry C Dietz
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2005-01-30       Impact factor: 38.330

Review 3.  The zipper-like folding of collagen triple helices and the effects of mutations that disrupt the zipper.

Authors:  J Engel; D J Prockop
Journal:  Annu Rev Biophys Biophys Chem       Date:  1991

4.  Genetic analysis of young adult patients with aortic disease not fulfilling the diagnostic criteria for Marfan syndrome.

Authors:  Koichi Akutsu; Hiroko Morisaki; Toshiya Okajima; Tsuyoshi Yoshimuta; Yoshiaki Tsutsumi; Satoshi Takeshita; Hiroshi Nonogi; Hitoshi Ogino; Masahiro Higashi; Takayuki Morisaki
Journal:  Circ J       Date:  2010-03-30       Impact factor: 2.993

5.  UMD (Universal mutation database): a generic software to build and analyze locus-specific databases.

Authors:  C Béroud; G Collod-Béroud; C Boileau; T Soussi; C Junien
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.878

6.  Life expectancy and causes of death in the Marfan syndrome.

Authors:  J L Murdoch; B A Walker; B L Halpern; J W Kuzma; V A McKusick
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1972-04-13       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Applying massive parallel sequencing to molecular diagnosis of Marfan and Loeys-Dietz syndromes.

Authors:  Machteld Baetens; Lut Van Laer; Kim De Leeneer; Jan Hellemans; Joachim De Schrijver; Hendrik Van De Voorde; Marjolijn Renard; Hal Dietz; Ronald V Lacro; Björn Menten; Wim Van Criekinge; Julie De Backer; Anne De Paepe; Bart Loeys; Paul J Coucke
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2011-07-20       Impact factor: 4.878

8.  Genetic diagnosis of autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease by targeted capture and next-generation sequencing: utility and limitations.

Authors:  Xiao-Ping Qi; Zhen-Fang Du; Ju-Ming Ma; Xiao-Ling Chen; Qing Zhang; Jun Fei; Xiao-Ming Wei; Dong Chen; Hai-Ping Ke; Xuan-Zhu Liu; Feng Li; Zhen-Guang Chen; Zheng Su; Hang-Yang Jin; Wen-Ting Liu; Yan Zhao; Hu-Ling Jiang; Zhang-Zhang Lan; Peng-Fei Li; Ming-Yan Fang; Wei Dong; Xian-Ning Zhang
Journal:  Gene       Date:  2012-12-21       Impact factor: 3.688

9.  Mutations in SERPINF1 cause osteogenesis imperfecta type VI.

Authors:  Erica P Homan; Frank Rauch; Ingo Grafe; Caressa Lietman; Jennifer A Doll; Brian Dawson; Terry Bertin; Dobrawa Napierala; Roy Morello; Richard Gibbs; Lisa White; Rika Miki; Daniel H Cohn; Susan Crawford; Rose Travers; Francis H Glorieux; Brendan Lee
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 6.741

10.  Fast and accurate long-read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform.

Authors:  Heng Li; Richard Durbin
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2010-01-15       Impact factor: 6.937

View more
  8 in total

1.  Lessons from next-generation sequencing in genetic skeletal disorders.

Authors:  Maria L Brandi
Journal:  Bonekey Rep       Date:  2014-05-14

2.  New insights into the performance of human whole-exome capture platforms.

Authors:  Janine Meienberg; Katja Zerjavic; Irene Keller; Michal Okoniewski; Andrea Patrignani; Katja Ludin; Zhenyu Xu; Beat Steinmann; Thierry Carrel; Benno Röthlisberger; Ralph Schlapbach; Rémy Bruggmann; Gabor Matyas
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2015-03-27       Impact factor: 16.971

Review 3.  Developing genomic knowledge bases and databases to support clinical management: current perspectives.

Authors:  Vojtech Huser; Murat Sincan; James J Cimino
Journal:  Pharmgenomics Pers Med       Date:  2014-09-09

4.  Lumbosacral stenosis in Labrador retriever military working dogs - an exomic exploratory study.

Authors:  Meenakshi Mukherjee; Jeryl C Jones; Jianbo Yao
Journal:  Canine Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2017-10-23

Review 5.  Diagnosing rare diseases after the exome.

Authors:  Laure Frésard; Stephen B Montgomery
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Mol Case Stud       Date:  2018-12-17

Review 6.  Massively Parallel Sequencing for Rare Genetic Disorders: Potential and Pitfalls.

Authors:  Aideen M McInerney-Leo; Emma L Duncan
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2021-02-19       Impact factor: 5.555

Review 7.  Gene Testing in Everyday Clinical Use: Lessons from the Bone Clinic.

Authors:  Emma L Duncan
Journal:  J Endocr Soc       Date:  2020-12-30

Review 8.  The revolution in human monogenic disease mapping.

Authors:  Emma Duncan; Matthew Brown; Eileen M Shore
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2014-09-05       Impact factor: 4.096

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.